Mistakes in Establishment of the Actual Circumstances of a Case as Grounds of an Appeal in The Criminal Procedure of Ukraine
- Institution: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9304-3170
- Institution: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3474-377X
- Year of publication: 2020
- Source: Show
- Pages: 62-77
- DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ksm20200305
- PDF: ksm/27/ksm2705.pdf
The article is devoted to research the actual procedural grounds for appellate review of court decisions in criminal proceedings of Ukraine. As a result of the study of these criteria for appellate review of court decisions, the authors concluded that the domestic legislator rightly singles out such grounds, as they cover violations related to evidence in criminal proceedings. The legal nature of the incompleteness of the trial and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings are given. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the incompleteness of the trial covers violations related to the shortcomings of criminal procedure in the collection and verification of evidence. Instead, the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings concerns judicial errors in the assessment of evidence and improper motivation of court decisions. The manifestations of these factual procedural grounds for appellate review of court decisions are analyzed. The procedural consequences of establishing signs of incompleteness of the trial and inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings are singled out. Analyzing the relevant norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of other states, as well as the views of researchers, the authors present their vision of the issues included in the subject of research. The necessity of improving the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, which regulates the incompleteness of the trial and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings, is substantiated.
REFERENCES:
- Čentéš J. a kol. (2012), Trestné právo procesné. Všeobecná a osobitná časť. 2 vydanie. Šamorín: Heuréka.
- Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of April 13, 2012 № 4651-VI. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text.
- Grzegorczyk T., Tylman J. (2011), Polskie postępowanie karne. Wydanie 8. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lexis Nexis Polska.
- Hofmański P., Sadzik E., Zgryzek K. (2011), Kodeks postępowania karnego. Tom II. Komentarz do artykułów 297–467. wydanie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. BECK.
- Izydorczyk J. (2010), Granice orzekania sądu odwoławczego w polskiej procedurze karnej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Łódźkiego.
- Jaroslav I. a kol. (2010), Trestné právo procesné. Druhé, doplnené a prepracované vydanie. Bratislava: Iura Edition.
- Jelínek J. a kol. (2011), Trestní právo procesní. 2 vydaní podle novelizované právní úpravy účinné od 1.09.2011. Praha: Leges.
- Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik (KrMS). Retrieved from: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/782861.
- Świda Z., Skorupka J., Ponikowski R., Posnow W. (2011), Postępowanie karne. Część szczególna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer Polska.
- Świecki D. (2011), Apelacja w postępowaniu karnym. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lexis Nexis Polska.
review of court decisions criteria for court’s decision review incompleteness of a trial inconsistency between the court’s conclusions and the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings alteration or cancellation of the court’s decisions
